Another difference between WiL’s marketing strategy and charity: water’s marketing strategy is their use of persuasive techniques. WiL uses shock value as a persuasive technique to recruit donors, such as The Heist for Good with ad agency Deutsch NY. In 2013, a WiL group in Kibera, Kenya noticed the deteriorating state of JR, a street artist,'s artwork. JR installed his artwork on roofs in Kibera in 2009. Believing that millions of dollars worth of art was going down the drain, WiL and Deutsch NY planned to take the works and sell them. In the so-called heist, local leaders helped them take the artworks off and replace the roofs with new metal roofs. Initially, two artworks were brought back to the U.S. and were put on auction at Julien’s
…show more content…
Admittedly, the residents willingly give up the artworks in return for new roofs (Burns, 2016) and the campaign is ultimately a heist for good. However, WiL took the pieces without the consent of JR or the women featured in the artworks (Rayner, 2015), breaking the unspoken rule to “always ask for the donation” (Burns, 2016). Frank Cartagena, creative director at Deutsch NY told The Huffington Post that WiL and Deutsch NY “reached out to JR twice about the campaign, but he declined to participate” (Goldberg, 2015). The artist JR came forward in an email interview with The Guardian and questioned the authenticity of the pieces WiL auctioned, saying that he,“couldn’t recognise the pieces...[he] realised that it wasn’t the photo [he] took but it’s the continuity of the work [he] did in Kiber in 2009....[and] that the monetizing of his work could lead him to pull out,”(Rayner, 2015). There was also talk of how WiL and Deutsch NY wrongly assumed that the community was oblivious to their resources and made the decision for the locals. Paul Currion, a humanitarian consultant, also objected against the campaign, saying that the campaign is “appropriating a community resource to raise money that goes into the bank of a private organisation, rather than the pockets of the community themselves” (Ranyer,
Admittedly, the residents willingly give up the artworks in return for new roofs (Burns, 2016) and the campaign is ultimately a heist for good. However, WiL took the pieces without the consent of JR or the women featured in the artworks (Rayner, 2015), breaking the unspoken rule to “always ask for the donation” (Burns, 2016). Frank Cartagena, creative director at Deutsch NY told The Huffington Post that WiL and Deutsch NY “reached out to JR twice about the campaign, but he declined to participate” (Goldberg, 2015). The artist JR came forward in an email interview with The Guardian and questioned the authenticity of the pieces WiL auctioned, saying that he,“couldn’t recognise the pieces...[he] realised that it wasn’t the photo [he] took but it’s the continuity of the work [he] did in Kiber in 2009....[and] that the monetizing of his work could lead him to pull out,”(Rayner, 2015). There was also talk of how WiL and Deutsch NY wrongly assumed that the community was oblivious to their resources and made the decision for the locals. Paul Currion, a humanitarian consultant, also objected against the campaign, saying that the campaign is “appropriating a community resource to raise money that goes into the bank of a private organisation, rather than the pockets of the community themselves” (Ranyer,